Lawyers on both sides of Proposition 8 argued their cases before a federal appeals court Monday morning with hopes of steering the fate of same-sex marriage in California and perhaps the nation.

For more than two hours, three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard arguments on whether the gay marriage ban is constitutional and whether backers of the voter initiative have standing to appeal a lower court ruling.

It is not known when a decision from the judges will be handed down, but legal experts predict it could be in two or three months.

During the televised hearing, Charles Cooper, one of the attorneys representing supporters of Proposition 8, argued that the reason society has an interest in keeping marriage between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

“Society has no particular interest in a platonic relationship between a man and a woman no matter how close it might be, or emotional relationships between other people as well, but when the relationship becomes a sexual one, society has a considerable interest in that,” Cooper told the panel of judges. “Its vital interests are actually threatened by the possibility of an unintentional and unwanted pregnancy.”

But Judge Stephen Reinhardt, seen as the more liberal of the three judges, seemed doubtful.

“That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce,” Reinhardt said. “But how does it relate to having two males (or) two females marry each other and raise children as they can in California and form a family unit where children have a happy, healthy home?”

UC Irvine’s Tony Smith, a political science professor who followed the trial on C-SPAN, said Cooper did not fare well when questioned about the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

“He floundered around and not because he’s not a good lawyer but because there isn’t really a good answer to those questions,” Smith said. “The fundamental problem that advocates of Proposition 8 have is they want the court to be concerned about the definition of marriage but not the definition of equality.”

During the first hour of the hearing, much discussion was centered on the question of who has standing to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in August that struck down the voter-approved gay marriage ban. The question of standing became the crux of this appeals process when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, the governor-elect, both refused to challenge Walker’s ruling.

Cooper contended the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 should be allowed to appeal because of the decisions by Brown and Schwarzenegger. However, his claim met skepticism by Judge N. Randy Smith.

“There is no question the attorney general has a duty to defend all the causes the state or any state official is a party in,” Smith said. “Did you ever seek an injunction or an order or anything suggesting the attorney general should appeal and appeal?”

The panel appeared dubious about whether the ban’s supporters were qualified to appeal but also seemed worried about allowing the governor and attorney general to effectively kill Proposition 8 by refusing to defend it.

“If the state does not defend it, it’s just tossing in the towel,” Reinhardt said. “The governor is not allowed to veto this measure, but he can in effect veto it.”

The judges – Reinhardt, Smith and Michael Daly Hawkins – could decide there is no standing in the case, uphold Walker’s ruling or overturn it. If the appellants lose the case, they could ask for a rehearing with a larger panel of the federal appeals court.

Charles Doskow, dean emeritus and professor of law at University of La Verne in Ontario, believes the case is likely destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

“If they’re going to follow the law, (the appeals court) could very well affirm what the district court did, and then go to the Supreme Court,” said Doskow. “Even if they decide there’s no standing to appeal, that decision may go to the Supreme Court on the question of standing.”

Smith believes the case will wend its way to the Supreme Court after an appeals court decision to uphold Walker’s ruling, with Judge Smith as the dissenting vote.

Judge Smith, viewed as a conservative-leaning judge, was appointed by George W. Bush. Reinhardt and Hawkins were appointed by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively.

“If I were to place a Las Vegas bet, I would say a 2-1 ruling because two of the judges seemed hostile toward Cooper,” Tony Smith said.

If the appeals court renders a decision by March, experts believe the U.S. Supreme Court could decide whether to hear the case by next fall.

There is much speculation over which side has the advantage in a divided U.S. Supreme Court.

“You always think the one appealing has less chance but that’s not true when it’s this political,” Doskow said.